A small step on the road to the completely equipped wood shop. Already I have a radial arm saw and a drill press. I've been watching Craigs list and Ebay for a good used bandsaw that would let me cut curves and resaw thick wood down to thinner wood. This calls for a machine of some size, not one of the little bench top units. And, as usual, price was an object.
The best price on a new bandsaw was $399 for a 14 inch Delta at Lowes. So, when a used 12 inch Craftsman turned up I had to check it out. So, with snow still falling, I ease the Deville out of the garage and drive down to Alton NH, a very small town way out in the Lakes region. I93 is clear and drivable, but the back road to Alton has been frost heaved badly, bumps deep enough to bottom out the springs and bang your head on the head liner at only 35 mph. Plus they haven't plowed the snow yet.
Found the place (google maps worked yet again) and the owner is expecting me. The saw is medium old, and dirty, but it runs, blade stays on the wheels, and wood is cut. So I write a check, we take the machine apart. The base goes in the back seat, the works go in the trunk. The back seat leather cringes at the shower of dirt and rust flakes.
Back home in my warm dry shop I start the cleanup. WD-40 loosens the rusted bolts. Rubbed around with a rag it makes the sheet metal look better. Shop vac sucks 20 years of crud and sawdust out of the nooks and crannies. I find the the dataplate with the Sears model number, and lo and behold, the Sears web site still lists the model and some parts are still available. A posting on Old Woodworking Machines (owwm.com) draws a reply stating that this model was on sale new back in 1987. So, it's twenty years old for real.
A belt pulley is loose because a locking key is missing, and the built in worklight has a strange looking burned out light bulb. A visit to Franconia Hardware yields the missing key and , after the owner rummages around, the light bulb. It's the last one in stock, and apparently it has been on the store shelf for a long time, waiting for a buyer. Franconia Hardware stocks everything.
Today I'll put it back together and see if it still runs.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Jeremiah is not a bullfrog, he is a toad
Watched the tapes of Jeremiah Wright ranting over the weekend. He said 9/11 was the fault of the United States, not Al Quada, he claimed AIDs was developed by the CIA in order the kill off American blacks, and he finished up by calling upon God to damn the United States. This makes Wright a disloyal, hate mongering, superstitious lefty in my book.
Obama has been attending this fruitcake's church for twenty years, Wright officiated at his wedding and baptized his children. How much of Wright's hate, treason, and superstition does Obama buy into? If he doesn't buy any of it why does he attend? Obama has been calling for an end to American black/white conflict, and a coming together of all Americans. Wright is a plain old fashioned hate monger. Where is the real Obama? Does he really believe what he has been preaching on the stump, or does he secretly share Wright's views?
It's too bad. I liked Obama a lot up until the Wright thing broke. Now I have doubts about where Obama's heart is truly located.
Obama has been attending this fruitcake's church for twenty years, Wright officiated at his wedding and baptized his children. How much of Wright's hate, treason, and superstition does Obama buy into? If he doesn't buy any of it why does he attend? Obama has been calling for an end to American black/white conflict, and a coming together of all Americans. Wright is a plain old fashioned hate monger. Where is the real Obama? Does he really believe what he has been preaching on the stump, or does he secretly share Wright's views?
It's too bad. I liked Obama a lot up until the Wright thing broke. Now I have doubts about where Obama's heart is truly located.
What the car you drive say about personality?
Dr. Helen Reynolds derides the idea here. She is correct that automobile marketers will at the drop of a hat, explain how buyers of their car share a long list of wonderful character traits. The Toyota Prius hybrid is used as an object lesson. Prius owners are said to be creative, expressive, noble, thoughtful inventive and a lot of other feelgood things. Obviously Prius marketing is working over time here.
On another level, there is a difference between guys and girls tastes in cars. Certainly this reflects some real personality differences between the genders. Unmarried guys like to drive big flashy hot rods. Big engine, extra chrome, mag wheels, painted in bright primary colors, sharp styling, stick shift. Once married, the wife will tone done hubby's automotive tastes. Women like small[er] cars, could care less about the engine, extra chrome and mag wheels. They like muted pastel colors, styling doesn't matter much, and they demand automatic transmissions.
Guys are willing to spend money on cars rather than on clothes, whereas with girls it's the other way round. Guys fancy clothes are quite restrained, dark suits, white suit and tie. No jewelry except wedding and college rings. Girls fancy outfits are much more flamboyant.
All this must reveal some deep inner gender based personality difference. To bad nobody has ever figured out just what it is.
On another level, there is a difference between guys and girls tastes in cars. Certainly this reflects some real personality differences between the genders. Unmarried guys like to drive big flashy hot rods. Big engine, extra chrome, mag wheels, painted in bright primary colors, sharp styling, stick shift. Once married, the wife will tone done hubby's automotive tastes. Women like small[er] cars, could care less about the engine, extra chrome and mag wheels. They like muted pastel colors, styling doesn't matter much, and they demand automatic transmissions.
Guys are willing to spend money on cars rather than on clothes, whereas with girls it's the other way round. Guys fancy clothes are quite restrained, dark suits, white suit and tie. No jewelry except wedding and college rings. Girls fancy outfits are much more flamboyant.
All this must reveal some deep inner gender based personality difference. To bad nobody has ever figured out just what it is.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Congress Shall make no law...
Highly illegal prayer was occurring in public schools as late as 1962. The founding fathers routinely violated separation of church and state. Religious content of George Washington's speeches did irreparable harm to the early republic.
Stephan Waldman issued all these remarkable untruths on Vermont Public Radio this morning. He is yet another radio pundit displaying his ignorance of US history. The Constitution actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of." Nowhere does the Constitution call for "separation of church and state".
At Constitution signing time, those words were directed at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which actually had an established church, the Puritan church (later called Congregational, and now the United Church of Christ) . Established means the Puritan church at rights at law denied other churches and received Commonwealth funding which the other churches did not. Massachusetts had prevented the free exercise of religion by executing Quakers on Boston Common in the not too distant past. Those practices were to be outlawed for the new Federal government.
In recent times, left wingers, aided by unwise judges, have expanded the original meaning to include banning Christmas decorations on town squares, banning the Lord's Prayer during opening exercises in public schools, and banning the display of the ten commandments in courthouses. Stephan the well educated Waldman, speaks as if the First Amendment supported the modern interpretation (distortion) ever since the beginning of the republic.
George Washington was noted for never using the the names God, Jesus, or Christ in his speeches. He always used the phrase Divine Providence, which is as non sectarian as you can get, even today.
How did Vermont Public Radio put such a dunderhead on the air, on Sunday morning no less.
Stephan Waldman issued all these remarkable untruths on Vermont Public Radio this morning. He is yet another radio pundit displaying his ignorance of US history. The Constitution actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of." Nowhere does the Constitution call for "separation of church and state".
At Constitution signing time, those words were directed at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which actually had an established church, the Puritan church (later called Congregational, and now the United Church of Christ) . Established means the Puritan church at rights at law denied other churches and received Commonwealth funding which the other churches did not. Massachusetts had prevented the free exercise of religion by executing Quakers on Boston Common in the not too distant past. Those practices were to be outlawed for the new Federal government.
In recent times, left wingers, aided by unwise judges, have expanded the original meaning to include banning Christmas decorations on town squares, banning the Lord's Prayer during opening exercises in public schools, and banning the display of the ten commandments in courthouses. Stephan the well educated Waldman, speaks as if the First Amendment supported the modern interpretation (distortion) ever since the beginning of the republic.
George Washington was noted for never using the the names God, Jesus, or Christ in his speeches. He always used the phrase Divine Providence, which is as non sectarian as you can get, even today.
How did Vermont Public Radio put such a dunderhead on the air, on Sunday morning no less.
Friday, March 14, 2008
How Boeing lost the USAF tanker contract (AvWeek)
Monday morning quarterbacking from Boeing. "There was a difference between what the Air Force talked about publicly and the way we read the Request for Proposal ," said Boeing's President Jim Albaugh. Sounds like the Boeing guys didn't get out of the office and schmooze with the customer. Airbus offered the A330 which is a bigger airplane than the 767 that Boeing offered. The Air Force has said they selected the A300 for the bigger payload and longer range. Boeing could have offered the 777 which is a big as the A330, maybe bigger but didn't. They also could have offered both airplanes but didn't want to fund two bid teams, and feared that two teams would compete with each other. That last doesn't make sense, competition is how you get a superior product.
Then Boeing didn't bid the well proven in production version of the 767. Instead they proposed an "improved" aircraft composed of a 767-200 fuselage, overwing exits from the 767-300, structural beefup from the 767-300F freighter model, and cockpit, tail section and flaps from the 767-400 ER extended range model. Speaking as an old USAF flightline maintenance officer, I'd rather have the straight commercial version so I can get parts from regular civilian sources and maybe even get depot level maintenance done at civilian facilities, and use civilian owned flight simulators for crew training.
Boeing's Albaugh claimed their pricing was as good as Airbus ($35 billion) for the first 179 aircraft. Industry sources say Boeing "was unresponsive" to Air Force requests for parts prices for fear that their airline customers could drive harder bargains once they knew what Boeing paid for things like engines.
Boeing lost the enormous F35 Joint Strike Fighter job to Lockheed, and now the tanker contract to Airbus. They had better get the 787 into production real soon now
Then Boeing didn't bid the well proven in production version of the 767. Instead they proposed an "improved" aircraft composed of a 767-200 fuselage, overwing exits from the 767-300, structural beefup from the 767-300F freighter model, and cockpit, tail section and flaps from the 767-400 ER extended range model. Speaking as an old USAF flightline maintenance officer, I'd rather have the straight commercial version so I can get parts from regular civilian sources and maybe even get depot level maintenance done at civilian facilities, and use civilian owned flight simulators for crew training.
Boeing's Albaugh claimed their pricing was as good as Airbus ($35 billion) for the first 179 aircraft. Industry sources say Boeing "was unresponsive" to Air Force requests for parts prices for fear that their airline customers could drive harder bargains once they knew what Boeing paid for things like engines.
Boeing lost the enormous F35 Joint Strike Fighter job to Lockheed, and now the tanker contract to Airbus. They had better get the 787 into production real soon now
Thursday, March 13, 2008
So How Much formadehyde is in FEMA trailers?
Lehrer's News Hour did a piece on formaldehyde in the FEMA trailers distributed after Katrina. It was a long piece, interviewed trailer occupants with health problems, lawyers, FEMA officials, and a consultant for the trailer makers. Not once in the entire piece did they tell us how much formaldehyde was found in the trailers. The level was "high" or "above limits" but never was a number for the actual measured amount given. To say nothing of how many trailers were measured. Nor was a government or industry standard given. Nor was the level measured in ordinary trailers sold to the public given. Lack of real numbers discredits the entire piece, if they really did the measurements, they ought to have written the results down and presented them. No numbers, no credibility.
Nor was the testing procedure documented. Were the measurements made with the windows open or closed? Instruments were calibrated how? Lab work was done by who? When was the lab certified last? Trailers were tested for what else besides formaldehyde? Cigarette smoke? gasoline vapors? Smog? Carbon monoxide? wood smoke? automobile exhaust?
Modern test equipment is so sensitive that it can detect a small level of anything nearly anywhere. I'm sure there is some level of formaldehyde from the plywood of which the trailers were constructed. For that matter I am sure there is a small level of formaldehyde from the plywood in my house. The question is, was the formaldehyde level high enough to be dangerous, not that it was high enough to be detected.
I expect the FEMA trailers were bought from ordinary trailer makers, who have made plenty of trailers before Katrina. I doubt that the Katrina trailers are any worse on formaldehyde than the trailers sold to the public. No formaldehyde measurements on publicly sold trailers were presented, but I'd bet they are about the same as the Katrina trailers.
The News Hour ought to be ashamed of presenting such a poorly documented and frankly biased piece on the air.
Nor was the testing procedure documented. Were the measurements made with the windows open or closed? Instruments were calibrated how? Lab work was done by who? When was the lab certified last? Trailers were tested for what else besides formaldehyde? Cigarette smoke? gasoline vapors? Smog? Carbon monoxide? wood smoke? automobile exhaust?
Modern test equipment is so sensitive that it can detect a small level of anything nearly anywhere. I'm sure there is some level of formaldehyde from the plywood of which the trailers were constructed. For that matter I am sure there is a small level of formaldehyde from the plywood in my house. The question is, was the formaldehyde level high enough to be dangerous, not that it was high enough to be detected.
I expect the FEMA trailers were bought from ordinary trailer makers, who have made plenty of trailers before Katrina. I doubt that the Katrina trailers are any worse on formaldehyde than the trailers sold to the public. No formaldehyde measurements on publicly sold trailers were presented, but I'd bet they are about the same as the Katrina trailers.
The News Hour ought to be ashamed of presenting such a poorly documented and frankly biased piece on the air.
New rules to prevent another subprime crash
The Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve bank issued a joint policy statement. Too bad the policy, as published in the Journal, is so vague and wimpy. They call for more regulation of mortgage lenders and brokers, but don't say what regulations were not enforced. They call for licensing of mortgage brokers, where as they ought to call for the total elimination of mortgage brokers. Brokers are middle men who take a cut, and con borrowers into signing bad mortgages. They call for ratings firms to rate ordinary bonds differently from "complex structured products". They should have eliminated the "complex structured products" because they are IOU's disguised as real bonds.
Issuers of IOUs (aka mortgage backed securities) would have to reveal if the mortgage borrowers had shopped around for a good credit rating. This is close to worthless. Of course the mortgage borrowers have attempted to get the best credit rating they can, 'cause it entitles them to a cheaper mortgage. And some credit raters are more generous than others, or are willing to take bribes for a good rating.
Treasury Secretary Paulson's closing quote. "We are going to be mindful when we impliment it to not create a burden. But we think it's very appropriate to lay out some of the causes and some of the steps that need to be taken... to minimize the likelihood of this happening again. The aim is to alter the rules and incentives that led to excesses that are now painfully evident--- years of lending and and investing at prices that didn't fully recognized the risks by institutions with inadequate capital cushions, the development of financial instruments so complex that even the most sophisticated didn't understand them, and a deterioration of lending standards. "
Let me rephrase Paulson's talk. "We will let you continue to make most of these shady deals. You need to charge more interest on loans, and you have to have a bigger rainy day fund to cover the shaky loans that go bad. The sophisticated investors didn't buy subprime mortgage bonds because they were so complex. The rubes were taken in and fleeced. And you issued too many mortgages to people with no income, no jobs and no assets ("ninja" borrowers).
Issuers of IOUs (aka mortgage backed securities) would have to reveal if the mortgage borrowers had shopped around for a good credit rating. This is close to worthless. Of course the mortgage borrowers have attempted to get the best credit rating they can, 'cause it entitles them to a cheaper mortgage. And some credit raters are more generous than others, or are willing to take bribes for a good rating.
Treasury Secretary Paulson's closing quote. "We are going to be mindful when we impliment it to not create a burden. But we think it's very appropriate to lay out some of the causes and some of the steps that need to be taken... to minimize the likelihood of this happening again. The aim is to alter the rules and incentives that led to excesses that are now painfully evident--- years of lending and and investing at prices that didn't fully recognized the risks by institutions with inadequate capital cushions, the development of financial instruments so complex that even the most sophisticated didn't understand them, and a deterioration of lending standards. "
Let me rephrase Paulson's talk. "We will let you continue to make most of these shady deals. You need to charge more interest on loans, and you have to have a bigger rainy day fund to cover the shaky loans that go bad. The sophisticated investors didn't buy subprime mortgage bonds because they were so complex. The rubes were taken in and fleeced. And you issued too many mortgages to people with no income, no jobs and no assets ("ninja" borrowers).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)